From gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Mon Nov 6 03:33:05 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED48C1FB88E; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 03:33:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.905 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1YIo3vh5f0t; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 03:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BC1C1FB869; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 03:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [31.133.136.219] (dhcp-88db.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.136.219]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 546261B0019A; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:32:49 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------gKugPmf5ubsfjQqZfoKva6Ls" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 12:32:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB To: Tim Panton , Sergio Garcia Murillo Cc: Bernard Aboba , tsv-art@ietf.org, wish@ietf.org References: <6F036C77-7D85-4CCF-9A38-7D719B183143@pi.pe> From: Gorry Fairhurst Organization: UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN In-Reply-To: <6F036C77-7D85-4CCF-9A38-7D719B183143@pi.pe> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Wish] [Tsv-art] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-09 X-BeenThere: wish@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 11:33:05 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------gKugPmf5ubsfjQqZfoKva6Ls Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 06/11/2023 10:48, Tim Panton wrote: > I agree that cc is an issue - I don’t think it is possible to specify > exactly what WHIP _must_ do. > However I do think there is scope for implementation advice somewhere. > > One thing to note is that in most WHIP scenarios REMB will be > sufficient and it is somewhat documented…. > > An implementation advisory document might also want to discuss the > optimal keyframe interval. > > Or perhaps this is all out of scope for WHIP/IETF and caveat emptor > for the implementors... > > T. I am just noting that many TSV reviews point to RFC 8085 as a set of guidelines that apply when you don't use a standard CC, This could be helpful if you would like a list of things to do, Gorry > >> On 6 Nov 2023, at 10:26, Sergio Garcia Murillo >> wrote: >> >> Hi Bernard, sorry for the late review >> >> I agree with your feedback regarding the importance of congestion >> control to ensure the best quality of ingest session (probably more >> important for UGC than for professional grade studios though). >> >> I am not sure what we could do in order to improve it, as as you >> suggest it is mostly an implementation issue and not a spec one. The >> consensus until now was not to provide implementation guidelines in >> the spec itself and only clarify potential misuses/confusions that >> could happen during implementation. Moreover, the group is not >> charter to work on the CC algos themselves, so we would have to point >> to work either on RMCAT or RTCWEB (or even MoQ). >> >> To make things more complicated, the defacto implementation (twcc and >> gcc) is not specified at all, so I am concerned that we could even >> provide any actual guidance within the spec. >> >> Any idea about how we could progress this? Maybe it is something we >> can discuss during tomorrow's meeting? >> >> Best regards >> Sergio >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:33 AM Bernard Aboba >> wrote: >> >> is here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-wish-whip-09-tsvart-lc-aboba-2023-07-25/ >> >> Datatracker has been unstable today so no emails appear to have >> been sent. >> -- >> Wish mailing list >> Wish@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish >> >> -- >> Wish mailing list >> Wish@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish > > > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list > Tsv-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art --------------gKugPmf5ubsfjQqZfoKva6Ls Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 06/11/2023 10:48, Tim Panton wrote:
I agree that cc is an issue - I don’t think it is possible to specify exactly what WHIP _must_ do.
However I do think there is scope for implementation advice somewhere.

One thing to note is that in most WHIP scenarios REMB will be sufficient and it is somewhat documented….

An implementation advisory document might also want to discuss the optimal keyframe interval.

Or perhaps this is all out of scope for WHIP/IETF and caveat emptor for the implementors...

T.

I am just noting that many TSV reviews point to RFC 8085 as a set of guidelines that apply when you don't use a standard CC, This could be helpful if you would like a list of things to do,

Gorry


On 6 Nov 2023, at 10:26, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Bernard, sorry for the late review

I agree with your feedback regarding the importance of congestion control to ensure the best quality of ingest session (probably more important for UGC than for professional grade studios though).

I am not sure what we could do in order to improve it, as as you suggest it is mostly an implementation issue and not a spec one. The consensus until now was not to provide implementation guidelines in the spec itself and only clarify potential misuses/confusions that could happen during implementation. Moreover, the group is not charter to work on the CC algos themselves, so we would have to point to work either on RMCAT or RTCWEB (or even MoQ).

To make things more complicated, the defacto implementation (twcc and gcc) is not specified at all, so I am concerned that we could even provide any actual guidance within the spec.

Any idea about how we could progress this? Maybe it is something we can discuss during tomorrow's meeting?

Best regards
Sergio


On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:33 AM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
is here: 

Datatracker has been unstable today so no emails appear to have been sent. 
--
Wish mailing list
Wish@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish
--
Wish mailing list
Wish@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish


_______________________________________________
Tsv-art mailing list
Tsv-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art


--------------gKugPmf5ubsfjQqZfoKva6Ls--